Large investments of federal money have been flowing to states and districts through Title II to help improve teachers and school leaders. Yet the idea that we know how to help educators improve through professional development may just be a mirage.

Principals have almost as much of an impact on student achievement as teachers do. Indeed, we found in a study of school reform in Washington, D.C., that replacing ineffective principals improves student achievement. But how do we distinguish good principals from bad ones?

On the one hand, value-added measures, like chainsaws, can be powerful tools and really useful for the right problem, like cutting down a tree. On the other hand, chainsaws, like VAMs, can do a lot of damage if you’re not careful and don’t know what you’re doing.

Alex Resch, Mathematica's associate director, Human Services Research, counters the claims in a new book, which argues that algorithms and mathematical models are destructive and harm society’s most vulnerable members.

Guided by the recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states are scrambling to incorporate nonacademic skills into school measurement systems, raising the question: “What measures should schools use and for which purpose?”

In a recent post on the Brookings Brown Center Chalkboard, Helen Ladd urges states to experiment with replacing test-based accountability with school inspections, visits by trained experts who rate the schools they visit and then issue reports.

The Every Student Succeeds Act presents a challenge and an opportunity. It changes the question from “what do we have to do?” to “what new opportunities exist?” as states can now design their accountability systems to accomplish their own goals rather than complying with federal demands.